| |||||||||||||
This is argument for the controller, not against it...This is argument for the controller, not against it...Posted Feb 18, 2011 1:08 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: This is argument for the controller, not against it... by khim Parent article: Go's memory management, ulimit -v, and RSS control Yes, killing the process is almost always better than failing the allocation. ISTR seeing Linux do that sometimes for rlimit violation; maybe there's a switch for that. Besides the fact that programmers just don't take the time to tediously check every memory allocation, there's not much they can do anyway if there is no memory available. It takes a pretty intelligent program to be able to function when the memory well is dry and adjust itself to the available memory. For programs that are that intelligent, there should be a way to do an explicit conditional memory allocation.
(Log in to post comments)
This is argument for the controller, not against it... Posted Feb 19, 2011 22:34 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I check most allocations when doing so does not make the program too ugly (which means everywhere other than in tiny string allocations, pretty much). I don't care about functioning under OOM conditions, but being told *which* allocation failed can sometimes point to catastrophic memory leaks and that sort of thing. It's saved my bacon more than once.
If a crashing process was hit with SIGABRT so it dumped core when it ran the machine out of memory, that might be OK... but the problem is that you then can't free up the memory until the core dump is finished, and the machine is in dire straits until then, and that the core dump is likely gigantic. If there was a way to automatically dump a backtrace... (unfortunately core_pattern pipes don't help here because you have to suck in the entire dump to get a backtrace, and if you're out of memory that probably means you have to write it to disk...)
|
|||||||||||||